• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

 
 
 
Emily Lake said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Elixir said:
Charlie Kirk is dead.
Things should be more peaceful now.
But they’re not. How come?
Click to expand...
If you cheer for death
And expect peace when its done
inconsistency
Click to expand...
Nicely done!
Click to expand...
Was anyone cheering for Kirk’s death? Before? After? Real question. To me, he was just another right wing nut job capitalizing on (some) people’s fear of progress and modernity. A dime a dozen hack. I realize now that he’s dead, he’s practically a martyred saint ( wrapped around that dime a dozen hack).
 
Toni said:
Emily Lake said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Elixir said:
Charlie Kirk is dead.
Things should be more peaceful now.
But they’re not. How come?
Click to expand...
If you cheer for death
And expect peace when its done
inconsistency
Click to expand...
Nicely done!
Click to expand...
Was anyone cheering for Kirk’s death? Before? After? Real question. To me, he was just another right wing nut job capitalizing on (some) people’s fear of progress and modernity. A dime a dozen hack. I realize now that he’s dead, he’s practically a martyred saint ( wrapped around that dime a dozen hack).
Click to expand...
If you cheer for death
You need only wait for it
It comes soon enough
 
When a cruel person dies, sometimes it's worth celebrating. I don't think anyone should be murdered, including by the government, but there have been people who have done so much harm to others, either physically, psychologically or both, that their death is no loss to humanity. I can think of a few who's deaths will bring me a sense of relief if they go before I do.
 
southernhybrid said:
When a cruel person dies, sometimes it's worth celebrating. I don't think anyone should be murdered, including by the government, but there have been people who have done so much harm to others, either physically, psychologically or both, that their death is no loss to humanity. I can think of a few who's deaths will bring me a sense of relief if they go before I do.
Click to expand...
I would say that there IS a great loss to humanity that the premature deaths of such people outside of their own clear agency to end their own life.

Call me cruel or say it is unusual as you may, but I think that the best death for such a person is one in which they have a path out, into life and normalcy and acceptance as a human being.

This path comes through the observation of who they have been and the pain that is the thing that reforms us, not pain of having been caught but specifically the designed pain of knowing what we did was wrong and that we were wrong for doing it and having to think about how wrong we were.

It comes in understanding the wider reasons why we expect people not to behave like that and why anyone who does might be expected to be so confined away from relevance.

Then there is another path, of pleasure and irrelevance and being locked away from any influence or even other human contact; where they are the only person in the world, babied as it were by as few human hands as can be managed and damned to live in whatever gilded prison with whatever drugs and substances they think can stave off the meaninglessness of what they have become. And to endure this until they choke on it and die, a suicide by hedonism and overdose, in what almost anyone could acknowledge as the very bottom of "rock bottom" despite being afforded everything they claimed to want but power over others.

But their death as anything other than a pathetic sadsack coward who has sunk to the lowest depths of the human experience is a tragedy; though if they manage to climb out, and feel the pain of actual love for all people after having been a thing that did not, their eventual death would be a different sort of tragedy.

Seeing them either away in a gilded prison OR walk out having been transformed into someone worthy of respect, either of these would be justice as they deserve.
 
  • Mind Blown
Reactions: WAB
Does anyone even give a shit about this asshole anymore? Even the MAGGOT jackanapses seem to have mostly shut their filthy traps. He is gone and deservedly forgotten.
 
So one really bad person is gone. And an even worse person is taking his place.

​

Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor.​


Fuentes despised Kirk for his support of Israel, and, more broadly, for his efforts to marginalize Fuentes’s gleefully racist and fascist brand of politics. In 2019, seeking to expose Kirk as “anti-white” and a “fake patriot,” Fuentes organized his army of young fans — known as Groypers, after a variant on the alt-right Pepe the Frog meme — to flood events held by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point, and ask hostile questions. At one, they drove Donald Trump Jr. off the stage.

Even as Fuentes defamed Kirk’s widow, powerful conservatives were engaged in a nationwide campaign to canonize Kirk and destroy progressives who maligned him. Guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast, JD Vance urged listeners to report people celebrating Kirk’s death to their employers. In such an atmosphere, one might think that Fuentes’s stock on the right would have fallen. Instead, it’s risen higher than ever, revealing a seemingly unstoppable ratchet of radicalization on the right.

If you’re not familiar with Fuentes’s ideology, he helpfully distilled it on his streaming show, “America First,” in March. “Jews are running society, women need to shut up,” he said, using an obscenity. “Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part.” His sneering, proudly transgressive attitude has made him a hero to legions of mostly young men who resent all forms of political gatekeeping.

Fuentes reached a career high last week when he was invited onto Tucker Carlson’s podcast, one of the most popular shows in the country. Carlson gently took issue with a few things Fuentes has said, especially the idea that Jews as a whole are responsible for the sins of Israel and neoconservatism. “I feel like going on about ‘the Jews’ helps the neocons,” Carlson said at one point. But their two-hour conversation was overwhelmingly friendly. Carlson seemed to presume that they were on the same side; his disagreements with Fuentes were mostly about means, not ends.

Conservatives who detest antisemitism were shaken by the interview. They were even more alarmed when Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — long a bastion of the conservative establishment — defended Carlson. “The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians,” he said in a video, describing Carlson’s critics as a “venomous coalition” who are “sowing division.”

In a message to the Heritage staff obtained by National Review, Roberts rejected “censorship and purity tests,” writing, “Canceling one person today guarantees the purge of many tomorrow.”

Roberts is not against cancel culture in principle; he cheered Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from ABC for his comments about Kirk’s murder. But he’s very much opposed to the cancellation of conservatives, no matter how extreme, and he’s not alone.
Click to expand...

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor.

A white nationalist’s rise reveals a seemingly unstoppable ratchet of radicalization on the right.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Jarhyn said:
(A long tirade about how to prevent someone from becoming a martyr)
Click to expand...
I will note that I don't feel quite this way about Kirk the way I do about the likes of Trump, McConnell, and Thiel.

Kirk was an idiot whose only consequence should have been enough humans talking about how he was a Nazi and insisting that word means more than just a German Nationalist Socialist party member to the point that nobody would associate with him until such a time as he decided to stop being a fucking Nazi.

This is something all of us had an obligation to do, but as individuals under the obligation we have to good conscience, rather than as any sort of organized action.

The failure to reject Kirk as a Nazi, of the kind of Nazi he was, is on literally everyone who missed it, and nobody else.

Sometimes, yes, there are Nazis, and you know what? Yes, we all have a bit of that in us. It's part of the human condition.

Literally the one thing I expect is that we recognize it and talk about it and say "let's not be that way" together and yes, I will rightly judge those who decide to be that way anyway.

But when someone starts wars? They definitely don't have much of a right to the warmth of society, and killing someone to death is still killing someone else.

I really hope Kirk would have met a ride of humanity against his ways to call for doing Nazi things before he got around to actually doing Nazi things himself so as to deserve a pathway through understanding the pain of the people to whom Nazi things were done or otherwise to the grave.

He never got that chance to just set it aside OR to change or whatever extent he might have reached if he hadn't been murdered.

Fuentes? He's far worse, and far more "slick", as in Kirk could have been a genuine believer capable of disillusionment. Fuentes is a shameless Nazi snake oil salesman. Where Kirk was a stupid fool child barreling at the supports of society, Fuentes is a calculated businessman aiming a mallet on the same beam and working alongside others to do so.

As I understand it, Fuentes has expressed "your body my choice".

This goes beyond mere speech, but is an expression of a clear and present unilateral danger.

At least Kirk, in my estimation, never expressed a willingness to rape someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom